Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Small Tortoise Butterfly C&C
-
27-07-2010 11:09pm#1been a while since I asked for comments, so here goes nothing ...
Got a new lowepro 100aw bag today, and just had to give it a test drive [well, bike ride] Also an opportunity to test out the zoom on the Tamron 75-300 I bought last week [used, but perfect nick]
A non-macro lens, so these will not be considered true macro, but very, very close ups maybe. Whatchya think? :
8
Comments
-
-
Yeah, disappointed with the last one really, wanted to get both in but as they were moving around a lot, just landing for quick drinks, I shot off loads at 5fps hoping to get both of them sharp. The bee turned out sharper in the end.
Thanks, 1st is my own fav. It's actually turned 90 degrees, the butterfly was actually facing directly down the flower
0 -
I'm in no way expert in macro (infact expert on very little so take these comments for whatever makes sense to you from them) - My immediate impression whether right or wrong is that i'm seeing a lack of appropriate sharpness and in general not terribly pretty compositions (background, appropriate depth of field, distracting elements, poor framing).
What i'm getting at probably include some things that aren't particularly in your control - for example; the flower head which the little guy landed upon is probably past its best for the year as is particularly stark in #3 (lot of stuff in our garden is that way at the moment and needs a refresh/visit to the garden centre) - but to me it doesn't make for a pleasant aesthetic. Nevertheless as a photographer you need to deal with it. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.
The lack of sharpness in some instances may be destructive processing - did you postprocess/how?. I did try to exif peek but I think your pix.ie exif is off? (setting in your profile setup).
In terms of composition in #1, the bud left hand side isn't very aesthetically pleasing to me (might be just me) but also has a peculiar crop position in that it appears to be just hovering there.
The last one is kinda awkward, what is the subject? The bee? in which case the butterfly with closed wings distracts big time or is it the butterfly, in which case between your decisive moment and the actual physical click the butterfly decided not to co-operate.
Hmnn.... i'm not mad on them tbh but that's a subjective opinion.
If it were me (and I regularly have to do this) I'd ask myself what it is that I want to capture. The answer to this shouldn't simple be "a butterfly". If it is then you are what I would consider just doing the snapshot thing (perfectly ok in its own sense of the art) But as a photographer you should include things like what perspective, colour, implied action/motion if any, focal length with reference to compression and potential aberrations of the lens, brightness, scene, background and so forth. What is the overall aesthetic? How will it be processed? You need to get to what will separate your image of a butterfly from the millions of other butterfly images that are out there. Even if just copying something that you've seen which is a striking image of a butterfly, there is a range of parameters that you'd need to meet.
My 2c and only 2c which means that i'm 98c short of a euro
0 -
-
I'm in no way expert in macro (infact expert on very little so take these comments for whatever makes sense to you from them) - My immediate impression whether right or wrong is that i'm seeing a lack of appropriate sharpness and in general not terribly pretty compositions (background, appropriate depth of field, distracting elements, poor framing).
What i'm getting at probably include some things that aren't particularly in your control - for example; the flower head which the little guy landed upon is probably past its best for the year as is particularly stark in #3 (lot of stuff in our garden is that way at the moment and needs a refresh/visit to the garden centre) - but to me it doesn't make for a pleasant aesthetic. Nevertheless as a photographer you need to deal with it. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.
The lack of sharpness in some instances may be destructive processing - did you postprocess/how?. I did try to exif peek but I think your pix.ie exif is off? (setting in your profile setup).
In terms of composition in #1, the bud left hand side isn't very aesthetically pleasing to me (might be just me) but also has a peculiar crop position in that it appears to be just hovering there.
The last one is kinda awkward, what is the subject? The bee? in which case the butterfly with closed wings distracts big time or is it the butterfly, in which case between your decisive moment and the actual physical click the butterfly decided not to co-operate.
Hmnn.... i'm not mad on them tbh but that's a subjective opinion.
If it were me (and I regularly have to do this) I'd ask myself what it is that I want to capture. The answer to this shouldn't simple be "a butterfly". If it is then you are what I would consider just doing the snapshot thing (perfectly ok in its own sense of the art) But as a photographer you should include things like what perspective, colour, implied action/motion if any, focal length with reference to compression and potential aberrations of the lens, brightness, scene, background and so forth. What is the overall aesthetic? How will it be processed? You need to get to what will separate your image of a butterfly from the millions of other butterfly images that are out there. Even if just copying something that you've seen which is a striking image of a butterfly, there is a range of parameters that you'd need to meet.
My 2c and only 2c which means that i'm 98c short of a euro
I hear ya
It was pretty much spur of the moment though, I didn't set out to photograph anything in particular .. just ... something to test the lens out really.
I was sure my exif was on over at Pix? if not, I'll sort that, I'm not one for hiding it, in fact, I hate when people do that!
The one with the bee ... well, I was simply trying to include both creatures, as they shared the flower. Nothing more. And because the bee only hung around for a few seconds, that is the best I got.
One major issue, which I didn't mention, and you'd see in the exif if it was viewable, is that I had left the camera @ ISO 500 ... and the D200 doesn't really handle much above 400 very well. Especially in strong sunlight when it's not needed at all! That was a total n00b mistake.
So yeah, i had to process a lot of noise out, well spotted
Personally I love the first one, the others were extra far as i was concerned. Looking at a mag earlier with butterfly shots, I was kinda proud, as mine are 'almost' as detailed without using a proper macro lens. And I am still getting to grips with this camera [have it less than a week, and I find it a big step up from the Sony A200] - no excuses, i need to learn as I go, but the high ISO in sunlight thing ... kicking myself tbh. They should have been sharper and not needed so much PP.
As for composition, I don't get why you don't like that? I thought I got some nice angles. But it is a matter of taste and opinion, and I appreciate the input
Bag is Ace AR, tidy and big enough , at last! for me to have the cam with zoom lens attached in bag at ready. Finally have room for my blower, torch, 50mm [when I get one] plus flash gun [when I get one]
By the way, I was hanging over a fence with lens on full 300mm shooting this little guy, if that makes any difference? And there was a lot of cropping down involved. Excuses, excuses I know ... but that is how it was. I think I will set out some fine day purposely to do this type of shot, and be better prepared [checking my settings before diving in would be a start]0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
hmnnnn...... eh, I am allowed sleep ya know
I'm in work now (i know bummer eh...) but I will revert later and see if I can elaborate some more.
I just want help! Not just criticism, that's all. Do appreciate the comments, but yours were like, 100% negative 
I did say in the first post they're not true macro, I don't have any dedicated lens for that, just a normal zoom. I think if I'd managed to get over the fence I'd have gotten sharper shots as i wouldn't have been at 300mm without a tripod or VR. The ISO definitely didn't help, and I probably processed them a little quicker than usual. Something to work on though, I don't do little bugs that often 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Thecageyone wrote: »I just want help! Not just criticism, that's all. Do appreciate the comments, but yours were like, 100% negative
So you're just looking for confirmation that your pictures are great? In fairness to AnCathDubh most other people don't give such detailed C&C. It was a long detailed reply stating what he thought of the images and why. He gave you exactly what you were looking for but you're complaining because it wasn't positive.
I understand why you're delighted with the photos you got. They aren't from a macro and they are with a new camera. They aren't bad but they aren't fantastic either. You need to be able to take the good with the bad. If someone gives you some negative feedback with reasoning behind it just suck it up and learn from it.0 -
-
Thecageyone wrote: »I just want help! Not just criticism, that's all. Do appreciate the comments, but yours were like, 100% negative
If ACD edits his post to add something nice at the start and the end, will you pay attention to the stuff in the middle then?!
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
I've re-read Tommy's C&C and just don't see where the help is, sorry. I mean,. pointing out that the flowers are not the freshest? Pointing out that it's not very detailed or sharp macro ... when they're not true macro shots at all? Saying they're badly framed but offering no real reason why? Just being realistic here. I probably should have said I wanted help with them in post # 1
The useless comments after from the usuals are only stirring ... I see no reason other for them to comment.
Anyway, anyone want to have a pop at the original image above? I'm open to anything you do with it that makes it better Honest. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I don't think it's petty at all, since you advertise youself for help yet haven't actually given any. You just continue to try back someone else's opinion up!? Give your own FFS!
Please point out the 'help' in Acd's C&C? Because I'm not feeling it , just being honest. Are we just auto-supposed to take negatives in because of who says it?
Are we supposed to just shut it when someone gives an opinion? Doesn't seem right. I did ask for C&C, yes ... I assumed people would give it and offer help and point out where I went wrong. not just ... wrong, wrong, wrong, bad, terrible ... I wonder if I'd posted them under a different name ... ? :P0 -
Okay I see. Good, rereading the thing. That usually helps on forum. I read posts 2 or 3 times before replying (if a "heated" debate).
Here's ACD post again. In short in reads the following (highlighted in ACD's bit):
1) Lack of sharpness i.e. butterfly is sharp in the wrong places.
2) Background takes away from image and is distracting.
3) Composition is not ideal.
These issues are within your control to modify in-camera on a next photographing butterfly session, and some of them can be changed in PP by cropping, sharpening and cloning out some of the background.
Other issues took away the full potential of the image are OUT of your control but can be kept in mind for the future:
For instance, Flower not the best looking. So, next time, keep that in mind and see if you can get the butterfly perhaps somewhere else (patience is a virtue and all that jazz).
If you take of all that together, it's a perfectly valid comment from a C&C point of view.
Hope this helped a little bit in trying to show you what I meant by being delighted to get that reply from ACD?I'm in no way expert in macro (infact expert on very little so take these comments for whatever makes sense to you from them) - My immediate impression whether right or wrong is that i'm seeing a lack of appropriate sharpness and in general not terribly pretty compositions (background, appropriate depth of field, distracting elements, poor framing).
What i'm getting at probably include some things that aren't particularly in your control - for example; the flower head which the little guy landed upon is probably past its best for the year as is particularly stark in #3 (lot of stuff in our garden is that way at the moment and needs a refresh/visit to the garden centre) - but to me it doesn't make for a pleasant aesthetic. Nevertheless as a photographer you need to deal with it. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.0 -
The flower thing, well, that wasn't within my control. the butterfly didn't seem to want to move away from it, not even when the bee landed. I didn't have much time either, and I didn't set out to capture any wildlife, it's not what i usually go for. I suppose that's why i asked for C&C, as this type of thing is a bit alien to me, bar the odd fly on a flower shot. Framing is one of the areas that I need help with. None was actually offered, that's all I'm saying. The sharpness, yeah, i get that. Could be so much better. But the flower? looks alright to me, but then I know nothing about flowers
How should I frame it? I didn't want the butterfly dead central.0 -
I hope ACD doesn't mind me quoting here but what I want to try and do is translate what you see as negative comments into what you would see as advice.What i'm getting at probably include some things that aren't particularly in your control - for example; the flower head which the little guy landed upon is probably past its best for the year as is particularly stark in #3 (lot of stuff in our garden is that way at the moment and needs a refresh/visit to the garden centre) - but to me it doesn't make for a pleasant aesthetic. Nevertheless as a photographer you need to deal with it. Have a vision of what you want to achieve and have the know how as to how to achieve it.
When you're shooting stuff like this it's easy to get all excited and not pay attention to the details. Your eyes and brain automatically work together to filter out the stuff you don't want to see, but when you present an image in 2d, that stuff gets equal attention to the main subject, and it can 'confuse' the viewer. That's why we use tricks like shallow depth of field - where the eye is drawn to the sharp bits, or saturation/colour/contrast - where the eye is drawn to an area that is more colourful or contrasty than the rest. So the flower that's looking a bit sad is getting more attention than it should, and it's up to you as the photographer to change that using one of those tricks to draw attention away, or wait until the butterfly is on a nicer flower!The lack of sharpness in some instances may be destructive processing - did you postprocess/how?. I did try to exif peek but I think your pix.ie exif is off? (setting in your profile setup).
Does this one need translating? The advice here would be: careful with processing because it can kill sharpness.
You've got two subjects in the frame - the butterfly, and the bud. And there's lots of space to the right of the butterfly, and none to the left of the bud, and you can't see the stem below the bud, so it's coming in to the side of the frame and looks like it's floating. The moral of the story here: be mindful of negative space, and balance in yoru composition, and the way that we visually respond to stuff on the edge of the frame particularly and consider including the whole thing or none at all, or crop at a more comfortable place. It's difficult to put that one in words without setting out 'rules' and that leaves a bad taste in my mouthIn terms of composition in #1, the bud left hand side isn't very aesthetically pleasing to me (might be just me) but also has a peculiar crop position in that it appears to be just hovering there.The last one is kinda awkward, what is the subject? The bee? in which case the butterfly with closed wings distracts big time or is it the butterfly, in which case between your decisive moment and the actual physical click the butterfly decided not to co-operate.
When you've got two subjects and seriously shallow depth of field, they either have to be on the same plane of focus and equally sharp or have a clear relationship defined through the use of selective focus, so we don't get confused when looking at them. Increase your depth of field to get them both, or change your angle to make one draw more attention than the other.If it were me (and I regularly have to do this) I'd ask myself what it is that I want to capture.
That's helpful advice if ever i saw it... I have no more to add to that.
I really hope you might see the actual advice in there rather than thinking of it as just pulling the pictures apart. And nobody said you had to agree, either.0 -
Thecageyone wrote: »Are we supposed to just shut it when someone gives an opinion? Doesn't seem right. I did ask for C&C, yes ... I assumed people would give it and offer help and point out where I went wrong. not just ... wrong, wrong, wrong, bad, terrible ... I wonder if I'd posted them under a different name ... ? :P
I really don't think you are being entirely fair here. I tried as best I could to point out what I thought could be done to improve the shots and I believe that ACD did the same but he took a lot more time and went into more detail, it should be appreciated that he took that amount of time. I genuinely do not think he was 100% negative and he did point out things that could be addressed (as sNarah highlighted) to improve things. Even to the extent of distinguishing what is in your control and what is not in your control.
Flowers, to me are inherently difficult to shot, I know you were shooting the butterfly but the flower was part of the image. I have several times been about to hit the shutter when I realised that when taken in isolation (in a photo) that the flower was just not going to look good.
Here is a shot of mine, which I like BUT I know because of flare (which I kinda hid by reducing brightness) and in particular damage to the petal (which I didn't notice at the time of the shoot), just does not cut the mustard. I have a friend who loves daffodils and asked for a print of it, I didn't want to do it for her as I knew the shot was not up to scratch but she wasn't looking at it in the way I was.
The thing is, when you offer something for C&C, you do need to remember that people will not always see things the way you do, a shot you love could be disliked by others and vice-versa. I recently posted a photo of a horse shaking it's head at me, the focus was not great but I liked it, technically it was a sh*te shot, I knew that but I liked it.
Try remember, people are not critiquing you, they are, as requested offering C&C on the image, the image not you.0 -
-
I really don't think you are being entirely fair here. I tried as best I could to point out what I thought could be done to improve the shots and I believe that ACD did the same but he took a lot more time and went into more detail, it should be appreciated that he took that amount of time. I genuinely do not think he was 100% negative and he did point out things that could be addressed (as sNarah highlighted) to improve things. Even to the extent of distinguishing what is in your control and what is not in your control.
Flowers, to me are inherently difficult to shot, I know you were shooting the butterfly but the flower was part of the image. I have several times been about to hit the shutter when I realised that when taken in isolation (in a photo) that the flower was just not going to look good.
Here is a shot of mine, which I like BUT I know because of flare (which I kinda hid by reducing brightness) and in particular damage to the petal (which I didn't notice at the time of the shoot), just does not cut the mustard. I have a friend who loves daffodils and asked for a print of it, I didn't want to do it for her as I knew the shot was not up to scratch but she wasn't looking at it in the way I was.
The thing is, when you offer something for C&C, you do need to remember that people will not always see things the way you do, a shot you love could be disliked by others and vice-versa. I recently posted a photo of a horse shaking it's head at me, the focus was not great but I liked it, technically it was a sh*te shot, I knew that but I liked it.
Try remember, people are not critiquing you, they are, as requested offering C&C on the image, the image not you.
Sorry, none of what I said referred top your C&C, which I did find more helpful.
Now, can we stop whoring Acd, he's big enough to speak for himself, and maybe actually offer me some help on the images? That is what the thread is for, someone can create a We-love-AcD thread any time if they like
Dave, I do not love my images ... I only took them yesterday, I like them, but can see they need vast improvement. I really don't get where people think I'm just looking for positives.
Animal rights, was there a point to that post? We get it, AcD gives good advice 'most times' - this thread isn't here to big him up though. It's getting cringey ...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
AnimalRights wrote: »I'll let you know when I speak to him. :pac:
Jesus or ACD?
Magic: I too like to hear where I go wrong, so long as the person pointing it out makes suggestions as to how to imporve it, rather than just pointing out the bad and leaving it at that. Don't see what people can't get about this.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks I would love a true macro lens, can't afford one at the moment but I will give ebay a try. I would consider these close up wild-life rather than macro though. I could probably get away with more of a crop down on the first one. Looking at the original it wasn't cropped as much as I initially thought. I could lose the bud easily and the bottom end of the lilac[?]
The reason I had a pop at others was because I merely asked ACD himself to clarify, and offer help. that was a me to him thing, not me to the forum which it turned out. I'd just rather others kept the C&C going instead of stalling the thread backing someone else's opinion up so much!
I think people forget I'm pretty much a n00b to photography, and when I ask for advice i take it in. I knew these images were off, hence posting them. if I thought they were great I'd not have needed to.0 -
-
-
-
Oh right sorry about that, just gotten used to being attacked in this thread for simply asking for more light on bad critique
Oh well, I've gotten some tips and advice. Just to point out and clarify, i was not disagreeing with ACD, I was just asking for advice to back up his C&C, nothing malicious in it whatsoever. I'd respect his advice if he gives it for sure. I've not seen much of his work admittedly, but I did love his Guinness shots, nice and sharp with lovely DOF - some tips from those could work on these shots.
I just thought it was more pointing out the bad than suggesting where to improve.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement